Rockets

I am when they are paid to do so. Probably yes as most are fighting against the wilful and wanton destruction of the democratic process by the officers trying to impose them on communities, often at the behest of active travel and cycle lobby groups, without any proper analysis on if they actually do what they are intending to do. Grand statements about area-wide reductions in traffic numbers for all being replaced by heralding a few extra cyclists using closed roads is not what any of us were sold.

What is interesting when you read the judge's summary is that he was criitical of the way the consultation was held but that it did not meet the high-water mark to make it unlawful in that regard. He cited issues with: The URNs on the outside of the envelope - but said that those who got the letter but lost the envelope could still contact the council The geographic boundaries were selected arbitrarily - but the judge said there were other physical notices and word of mouth Poor distribution of letters - judge said something clearly went wrong between the council drawing up the list, instructing the delivery of the letters and the letters actually arriving The LTN library event - the judge described the reporting of it, and the weight of feeling against the measures it as " a masterclass in selective partial reporting". Complaints about the way the 67.5% of people dissatisfied with the proposals was reported - “a minority of people who completed the survey were not in support of some part of this scheme …” when in fact "a majority of people were clearly not in support of part of the scheme" Difficulty in getting a meeting with Cllr Chowdury and claims that she said she would not do so because of “vehemently anti-LTN views” expressed by members of the group in the past. Judge basically said this was a he said/she said and did not determine that this was was a pre-desposition to the fact that an agreement Cllr Chowdury made to pass the 53-page document shared with her and others during a meeting that took place was not upheld as other council officers at another meeting said they had not received anything from her. The consultation unfairly shepherded respondents respondents so that they could only comment on how the proposals should be implemented, not on whether they should be. - judge said that "It is true that many of the questions required respondents to accept the premise of the question when responding". However he concluded that there were still some opportunities to enter free-text answers in which general opposition could be expressed. In addition it is plain that responding to the consultation form was not the only opportunity afforded to objectors to express their opposition to the proposals. So many of these issues are exactly the same issues many of us have had with the way Southwark has run it's consultations - letter snot being delivered, misleading reporting of the opposition to schemes, demonisation by the council of anyone in opposition to the measures, consultations that you can't reply no to......it's clear there may well have been a playbook these councils were following as they tried to manipulate the process as this can't just be co-incidence....

Its actually good to have well researched information on the authors of such Opinion pieces so you can determine what vested interest they have in that view point. Joseph is a Guardian journalist and Lambeth resident seeing the impacts of the LTNs first-hand. Izzy, on the other hand, is paid to promote LTNs - and an LTN gun for hire. She is an active travel campaigner who is a member of the LCC and is the sustainable travel campaign manager for We Are Possible who, you might remember, worked with Rachel Aldred's Univeristy of Westminster Active Travel Academy to publish the "most extensive study of LTNs" which showed that....wait for it..."streets within LTNs experienced a significant drop in traffic....". Well I never...if you close streets to traffic then you will never guess what happens to traffic levels within the streets closed to traffic.... She is the very definition of an LTN lobbyist....Peter Walker must have been too busy to pen the Joseph opinon rebuttal so they bought Izzy in.... I love where she points out that London's road have been the most congested in Europe for years. What she fails to mention is that, despite all the LTNs going in, congestion is getting worse not better - despite there being fewer cars on the roads! One wonders what might be causing that.... I think Joseph's Opinion piece is a far more realistic reflection of life with LTNs than Izzy's.

Has the pavement been widened there so M&S have somewhere to make deliveries to the store?

Yes. That brilliant and absolutely spot-on opinion piece! And I think the headline of that piece sums things up beautifully: Opposing LTNs doesn’t make you a ‘culture war’ petrol-head. Just look at what happened in Lambeth And on that - just because someone opposes LTNs doesn't make them a right-wing zealot - despite you desperately trying to make that connection at every opportunity. I read articles from the Guardian, Times, Telegraph and a whole range of media but I am smart enough to realise that each one of them skews their interpretation of the news to their readership's political and ideological leanings - so I fully understand why members of the pro-LTN/pro-cycling/active travel lobby would give an "exclusive" to Peter Walker. But by the same measure I understand why the Daily Mail would go to town on a story about an old lady being killed by a cyclist who avoided prosecution on the basis that "the speed limit did not apply to me as I am a cyclist". And I am also media savvy enough to understand why neither of them would cover the other one's story. My most trusted news source: the BBC. Why? Because it upsets the right and left in equal measure so it's clearly doing the right thing and as a left-leaning centrist that works for me! And if the BBC say the West Dulwich LTN is unlawful then that's what I am going to believe despite what a lot of folks on here like to claim! 😉

Some argue that all articles in The Guardian are opinion pieces....whether they have that tagline or not 😉

@march46 I think you will find there is a long list of evidence that many of those voicing their concerns about LTNs and cycling infrastructure have been saying that too little has been done for pedestrians with too much focused on cycling. I am not sure how you can conclude that people asking if we need three crossings in 100 yards are anti-pedestrian. Just out of interest, do you think there should be a pedestrian crossing on the Dulwich Village cycle track - maybe they can take one from the Melbourne Grove?

It's been a bad couple of weeks for the week for the LTN lobby - first the high-court ruling on the unlawful West Dulwich LTN and now the Guardian publishing that - surely there must be an LTN "exclusive" in the wings waiting to be posted.....

Has the Guardian been hacked - that's the best LTN piece I have ever seen in the Guardian. I may have to frame it ;-)? Clearly they are trying to re-balance their coverage after years of LTN "exclusives" trying to convince everyone they are great and working. One wonders if there was some frostiness in the Guardian canteen between Peter and Joseph this morning! 😉 Come on @Earl Aelfheah you love the Guardian's coverage of LTNs so surely you must lap this one up too? Anyone else think the worm is turning when even the Guardian goes in two-footed on a council and their LTN debacles..... This sums it all up: Ultimately, the main problem with the LTNs is that they are all stick, no carrot. For all the restrictions and the penalty notices, there has been almost zero improvement in public transport. There are no new bus routes to make travel easier; no extra trains; and in most of south London there is still no underground, a lack of investment that creates millions of unnecessary car journeys across the capital. Many people will, of course, have little sympathy with drivers, especially if they don’t own a car. Yet there’s a hypocrisy here. Because I can’t think of anyone, car owner or not, who doesn’t regularly depend on a personal driver: be that the Uber driver, the person who delivers the online shopping, or the local plumber or electrician. The time wasted in queues, the frustration and the extra fuel consumption are all outsourced to the little guy. There should be a way around this, but the first step would be to listen. Lambeth has been exposed for ignoring its residents. Those who oppose LTNs are not rabid petrol-headed rightwingers who want to burn up the planet: they’re mostly just ordinary people trying to go about their daily business whose life has been made miserable. They have a right to be heard. And those in power should remember: car ownership is not a crime. Drivers are not evil.

The perspective is very clear @malumbu - there are three crossings within about 100 yards of each other on a single stretch of road. I said that the new location makes perfect sense from a footfall perspective but that it probably makes one of the other two redundant - do you not think that is the case - if so what is the rational for your argument - perhaps you would like to share?

Surely a 100 yard walk would be better for active travel purposes.....! Gotta love the responses to my message but then when your world revolves around trying to turn every road into a permanent pedestrian crossing then what can you expect...........;-) Three crossings in such a short space is ludicrous and utterly unnecessary - I can't think of three crossings in such short succession even on streets like Oxford Street! I wonder if the same people would be so keen to see a pedestrian crossing put in on Dulwich Square across the cycle track which is clearly urgently needed - I doubt it as they would say it would hinder active travel growth!!!

And close to the controlled crossing at Oglander too - that's a lot of crossings in a short stretch of road - the new one does make a lot of sense in terms of location but will the council need to remove one of the others?

@Earl Aelfheah the Turney Road closure was the one Southwark asked TFL £1.8m for and TFL said….go away. So that had nothing to do with the consultation or listening to their constituents. Do you have any others where you think the council made significant changes based on consultation feedback? And I can assure you Southwark councillors masquerading as members of the public to pour scorn on those who dare oppose their plans is not a conspiracy theory…https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/exclusive-former-southwark-housing-chief-leo-pollak-broke-councils-code-of-conduct-but-no-action-to-be-taken/

Southwark councillors do have a history of masquerading as members of the public so I wouldn't put it passed them! 😉 Because it was clearly said with my tongue clearly in my cheek......!!!! Ha ha, they didn't propose the changes though did they - the original plans were so expensive they got laughed out of the room.....

Which schemes did they scrap - are you referring to the area-wide CPZ? Can you give us examples where changes made truly reflected the feedback gathered from the residents because if you the classic "we listened to you, ahem, on the basis of a consultation that was designed not to allow you to say no but forced you to choose between a variety of A, B, C, D options - none of which you actually agreed with. " No but they do treat it like they are the only ones with a vote so ultimately it is a referendum of sorts! Look at the Townley CPZ - no-one wanted it, no-one needed it and I suspect the only impact assessment they did was assessing how much parking pressure it would create on surrounding roads and how quickly they could get another CPZ in on the basis of it.....as part of their revised area-wide (street-by-street) CPZ plan......that's not listening to the consultation.... A lot of councils do seem to be....they're utterly terrified that constituents won't think their ideas are good ones so they run consultations where they have been able to run rough-shod over the view of constituents. And now one of them has been caught red-handed and a group of residents had to raise money to challenge the council in the High Court to force them to do what they are expected to do. That's no democracy - that's a shameful abuse of power.

No, it's clear what I am asking you and clear why you don't want to answer.....

But given the weight of over-whelming and compelling negative consultation feedback from local people have they really engaged in the spirit of the guidance on consultations? Have they really "listened to" and "learned from" the consultations?

But @Earl Aelfheah hand on heart, can you say that Southwark has been "listening to, and learning from" the results of their various LTN and CPZ consultations?

No I am not. It is clear from guidance given to local authorities on what a consultation should be and it is clear that councils have been able to manipulate the process. https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/communications-and-community-engagement/resident-communications/understanding-views-2 What is consultation? Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set. Lambeth fell foul of this because they did not listen to or learn from local people. Southwark have been doing exactly the same. For too long councils have been treating it as nothing more than a box ticking exercise. Perhaps now they will be forced to engage more and do more listening and learning.

But I think we can all agree the current consultation method is so flawed that it has basically become a pointless exercise. The problem for councils is that for decades they have been able to manipulate the process (if they needed to) because no-one really cared and there was no scrutiny. Then they continue that process for active travel which has massive impacts on people's lives and suddenly a lot of people go...huh, that's not a democratic process. And then councils like Lambeth do what they do and people, quite rightly say, see...we told you they were gaming the system - and that narrative sticks. And Lambeth were gaming the system - just as Southwark were (just that Southwark have yet to get caught). They know it and everyone else, no matter what side they are on, know that councils have been using and gaming the system to their advantage. Councils are finally reaping what they sowed.

Which is exactly why the High Court judge has ruled the West Dulwich LTN unlawful.

Ha ha...are Healthy Neighbourhoods the new name for LTNs.....like renaming a night club that has an awful reputation? And is Lambeth now using an "engagement" as the new watered-down "consultation"? Correct me if I am wrong but Lambeth distinguishes between the two don't they and an engagement requires less detail - ahem, one wonders why they might be choosing that path..... Let's see if Lambeth can make these ones lawful hey!!! 😉 Really? The High Court Judge doesn't seem to agree with you on that one.... He said that the dossier created by WDAG, which argued traffic would be pushed on to heavily congested boundary roads affecting thousands of school and nursery children, was "highly relevant to the decision confronting officers". He said: "The 53-page presentation did not form part of the council's considerations in its decision to make the [LTN] orders. It should have done. "The failure to have regard to it was a serious failing, rendering the decision to make the orders unlawful."

BBC News - West Dulwich low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) unlawful, High Court rules - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4178plvdo Hmmm, might be wishful thinking on your parts there folks....

But the point I am making is they treat the decision they make as if it were a a referendum - except they are the only ones who have a vote! Do you see the point I am making: we the council embark on a democratic consultation. The people say they don't want it so we say - well we're the only ones with the vote that matters, we are going to ignore the weight of evidence against us and are going to do whatever we want whether you want it or not....this is the whole basis of why the High Court Judge ruled the West Dulwich one unlawful. The judge is actually saying the consultation should have been run more like a referendum.

One Dulwich Campaign Update | 12 May West Dulwich Action Group wins LTN legal battle Congratulations to the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), the first campaign group in the UK to win a legal battle over an LTN. Last week, a High Court judge ruled that Lambeth Council’s consultation was unfair and the West Dulwich LTN unlawful. The LTN was implemented last September after a consultation in which 67.5 per cent of residents objected (a similar percentage objected to the Dulwich Village and East Dulwich LTNs). It will remain in place pending further direction from the judge, who may order its removal. The judgment has given hope to our fellow campaigners in Croydon and Greenwich. Challenging councils over consultations has always been hard, firstly because the time window for legal action is so small, but also because the courts have previously seemed reluctant to rule against trial schemes, especially those introduced during Covid (listen to the report at 1:34:59 on BBC Radio 4 Today). But now, in 2025, the tide may be turning. WDAG’s win was widely reported – see The Times, The Telegraph, and BBC London. Now WDAG are calling on Lambeth to refund more than £1 million in fines issued since last September. Southwark News calls for the Council to work with Dulwich residents Cllr Richard Leeming’s comment at last week’s meeting on the Future of Dulwich made front page headlines in this week’s Southwark News: “Ward councillor asserts that Southwark’s most controversial LTN will not be lifted whilst there is a Labour Council.” The newspaper also devotes its entire editorial to the meeting, highlighting local anger and frustration, and the “vital importance in politics of bringing people with you.” “Going forward,” the editorial says, “the council should explore ways it can work with local residents to address some of their concerns – only then might we see a system that works for everyone.” We couldn’t agree more. Our councillors have our contact details – we look forward to hearing from them. Thank you for your support.